Conflicts in non-profit organisations

The paradox: high commitment, little confrontation

People want to protect the atmosphere, maintain good relationships, and safeguard collaboration. Criticism is swallowed. Frustrations remain unresolved. Differences are left unspoken. Not because they do not matter, but precisely because they do.

The idea that “we need to work it out together” can cause conflicts to remain unresolved for months, until the situation becomes impossible to sustain. By then, the conversation is no longer a real conversation; positions have hardened and trust has disappeared.

What the conflict is really about

In commercial organisations, conflicts often revolve around interests. In non-profit organisations, they are more often about beliefs and values. It is not about what works best, but about what is right.

Research into so-called value conflicts shows that these conflicts run deeper and are more difficult to resolve. They are connected to personal beliefs and moral frameworks. When principles collide, distance emerges¹.

The tension between roles

Most non-profit organisations combine a professional structure with strong social commitment. Boards and management focus on continuity and responsibility. Professionals work from their expertise and professional standards, while volunteers act from conviction and flexibility.

Each perspective is legitimate, but they do not always align.

Research shows that this combination creates structural tensions around role perception, decision-making, and influence². People want to collaborate, but they operate from different logics. Friction that is not addressed becomes conflict.

What helps in these situations is taking a systemic view. A conflict between two people is rarely just a conflict between two people. It is often a signal of something within the organisation itself: an unclear division of roles, a decision-making pattern that does not work, or tension between the formal structure and how work actually happens in practice. Recognising this allows organisations to address the cause rather than the symptom.

Why conflicts become visible too late

Conflict is often only taken seriously once it becomes visible, but by then it has already progressed significantly.

The familiar pattern: people talk about each other instead of with each other, positions are repeated without movement, and trust declines. At a certain point, there is no way back without intervention.

This leads to unnecessary energy loss, absenteeism, and people disengaging. Research shows that an average workplace conflict costs an organisation around €25,000 through continued salary payments, absence management, productivity losses, and legal costs⁴.

Why legal action rarely helps

A legal process focuses on proving who is right, rather than understanding, repairing, or working together. The distance between parties increases. Positions become more entrenched, and the relationship becomes further damaged.

For organisations that depend on collaboration, trust, and reputation, the risks extend beyond the conflict itself. Moreover, attention shifts away from what truly matters: the mission.

When should mediation be used?

Early. Much earlier than most organisations currently do.

Signs that it is time:

• Conversations repeatedly go in circles

• Positions become more entrenched and progress is lacking

• Trust is under pressure

• People talk about each other instead of with each other

You do not have to wait until a conflict has fully escalated. Mediation at an early stage prevents further damage. If you are unsure whether a situation is serious enough, that is often the moment to facilitate the conversation.

Mediation: creating space for the real conversation

Mediation begins where things often go wrong: with the conversation that was never held. Not to determine who is right, but to clarify what is happening and what is needed to move forward.

Sometimes there is no explicit conflict, but a collaboration has become stuck. In that case, facilitated dialogue may be enough: a facilitator who provides structure without requiring a formal mediation process. The threshold remains low, while the impact can be significant.

This is especially important in organisations where values play a major role. Underlying tensions become discussable. Perspectives are understood. Trust is restored. Organisations that invest in dialogue early experience demonstrably fewer escalations and perform better³.

From avoiding conflict to becoming conflict-capable

Strong organisations are not conflict-free. They are conflict-capable. They do not wait until a situation escalates, but engage in conversations earlier and make differences discussable.

Tension is part of commitment. It is not a sign that something is going wrong; it is a sign that something matters.

The question is not whether conflict will arise, but how it is handled.

How Result ADR helps

At Result ADR, we do not see conflict as a disruption, but as part of working together. We facilitate conversations not only to resolve conflicts, but also to strengthen collaboration. We do this through mediation, facilitated dialogue, and systemic analysis of what is happening within the organisation.

For ANBI organisations, we offer a special rate. Conflicts in these organisations affect not only collaboration, but also the mission itself, and this requires an approach that takes this into account.

Resources

¹ Universiteit Leiden – De-escalation of value conflict: Justice and intervention universiteitleiden.nl

² López-Cabrera et al. (2020) – Conflicts Between Paid Staff and Volunteers in the Non-profit Sector ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7212825

³ Acas (2025) – How prevalent is individual conflict at work in Great Britain? acas.org.uk

⁴ Urwin & Saundry / Acas (2021) – Estimating the costs of workplace conflict acas.org.uk